Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Figures it would be an ex-republican to kill the libertarians parties chance.

 

And an ex-Democrat will do the same to the Republicans.

Quote:And an ex-Democrat will do the same to the Republicans.

 

touche single party it has become. 

Quote:Ron Paul is 80 years old.  You can let that hope go.  As far as Rand is concerned, he's no libertarian either. 

 

Those who were fawning over Gary Johnson as the logical alternative should educate themselves.  The guy is weak, and he's got a Romney drone on the ticket.

Rand is not a libertarian I agree completely. But he is much closer than what is currently on the Libertarian ticket.

This guy?

Bump because conventions.

Compared to Trump and Clinton Johnson is Socrates and Plato and Lincoln wrapped up into one.

Quote:At this point he has my vote by default

Quote:Same.

That'll help Hillary win.

Quote:That'll help Hillary win.

Then the stupid GOP voters have only themselves to blame, don't run a big government Democrat and expect me to vote Republican.

This really should be the year of a 3rd party candidate. Johnson can't be the guy.


Can we get Shad Khan to run?

Quote:This really should be the year of a 3rd party candidate. Johnson can't be the guy.


Can we get Shad Khan to run?

 

A declaration and an odd opinion followed by a demonstration of your misunderstanding/ignorance of the position? Strange post.

 

Khan isn't qualified because of his birth status.

Quote:Then the stupid GOP voters have only themselves to blame, don't run a big government Democrat and expect me to vote Republican.

For the last time, he's not a big government democrat

Quote:For the last time, he's not a big government democrat

Prove it. JJ, if there is anyone that can make the case, it's you. And yet you are conspicuously absent when the areguemrnt for trump gets heated...


Why is that?

Quote:For the last time, he's not a big government democrat

Lol neither was bush right?

I don't think the bush wing of the party has anything to do with this.

Quote:Lol neither was bush right?

 

No, Bush (both of them) were Establishment Republicans, center right but certainly not Democrat Left.

Double.

Quote:I don't think the bush wing of the party has anything to do with this.

Bank bailouts by the billions, no child left behind, massive government surveillance, expanded Medicare and entitlements, sure sounds like a big government Democrat to me.

Quote:No, Bush (both of them) were Establishment Republicans, center right but certainly not Democrat Left.

Just because they're social conservatives ?


Economically, domestic policy, and entitlements they line right up with the best of the Democrats.

Bump because town hall.

I thought long and hard about voting for Johnson, and wondered if we were all head-faking each other out.

 

Let me explain.  I was talking with my die-hard Republican mom, who hates Hillary and will vote for a man she considers incredibly vulgar because he Isn't Hillary.  I will not vote for the vulgar man, and will instead vote for a woman I consider fundamentally self serving if not downright dishonest.  I asked Mom if she would consider voting for Johnson.  She said no, that would hand the election to Hillary.  And I won't vote for Johnson for the same exact reason.

 

So if we threw out the polls, and they were all even at 33%, would we all change the way we vote?

 

I thought about starting a poll thread based on the question, then remembered something:

 

The electoral map.

 

If no one gets 270 electoral votes, Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. because it will be left to the Republican controlled House of Representatives to decide.  The House could go rogue, and it would be my suggestion they do so if this happened, but it's unlikely.

 

California and New York are Hillary's, Texas and much of the South belongs to Donald.  The rest are various degrees of competitive, and Johnson would have to pretty much win them all to get to 270. 

 

It's just not happening